9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (10) TMI 190X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 9-10-1987. In terms of the above said orders, the learned Collector imposed a penalty of Rs. 20,000/- each on the appellants under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 and another penalty of Rs. 10,000/- each against the above captioned appellants under Section 74 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968. 2. The orders passed under the Gold Control Act, 1968 and the Customs Act, 1962 are separately passed by the learned Collector. The facts leading to both the cases are the same arising out of the same seizure and, therefore, we propose to dispose of all the four appeals by this common order. 3. The brief facts of this case are that one Sri Murtaza Hossain of Lalbagh Dist. Darbhanga, was caught by the police of L.N. Mithila University on 7 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by any other independent evidence. They also contended that this statement of Murtaza Hossain is an unreliable statement and the fact that Murtaza Hossain is a man of no means and the appellants are having sufficient means to do the gold business are not spelt out in the show cause notice, and therefore, relying on such circumstances to find the appellants guilty is not in accordance with law. In support of their contention they relied on the following decisions : (i) 1987 (30) E.L.T. 797 - Tarsem Lal Maglani (ii) 1987 (27) E.L.T. 504 (Tribunal) - Seshmal M. Jain (iii) AIR 1985 (SC) 866 - Shrishail Nageshi Parev v. State of Maharashtra. 6. The learned departmental representative, Sri B.B. Sarkar contended that Murtaza Hossain has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penal in nature, it is for the department to establish and prove by acceptable legal evidence the charge of contravention to bring home the guilt of the appellant. It was held in that case that the statement of the co-accused, Mahendra Kumar at best will raise a suspicion against the appellant Seshmal M. Jain. Sri Mahendra Kumar in that case gave a statement that the gold in question was to be delivered to the appellant, Sri Seshmal M. Jain, and the Tribunal held that this statement alone may create a suspicion and is not a substitute for evidence. In such circumstances, we are of the opinion that the statement of Murtaza Hossain alone is not sufficient to fix liability on the appellants. The same should be corroborated by some independent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... little surprised that such a statement should have been made by the High Court. We wish to make it clear and this is only to repeat what is so well established that a retracted confession by an accused may form the basis of a conviction of that accused if it receives some general corroboration from other independent sources. It cannot however be the basis for convicting co-accused though it may be taken into consideration against co-accused also. It is entirely wrong to think that a confession can lead nowhere. We are sorry to find such careless statements in the judgment of a High Court . It is thus clear that, though the statement of a co-accused can be relied on against the other accused, that alone is not sufficient to come to the co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
